Canadian Politics

[ironphoenix]

In (faint?) hopes of getting a bit of discussion...

What's up with the Canadian non-Conservatives? Is there any hope of the parties putting their differences aside enough to work together in any significant way, or will they spend next election taking potshots at and stealing votes from each other? If they were to work together, how could they do so?

Comments

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The Conservatives have most of the economic cards, as long as there is a strong market for the Alberta tar goo. Which leaves any party left free to say that the very real boon to the economy those sand pits represents should be marginalized.

Which leaves very little in the way of discussion, sadly.

As to more liberal elements in general, let's face it; the more liberal we are, the more likely we are to accept dissenting views. Which means all political gatherings turn into circular firing squads. By contrast, a conservative is more interested in "what's right" politically rather than "what's right" absolutely. This gives them the freedom to ignore their conscious on some issues in the interest in keeping control over other issues.

Then again, I get most of my Canadian political information from Rick Mercer and Jesse Brown, so disregard if need be. ;-)

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

The Canadian right-wing used to be more principled. I disagreed heartily with the Reform Party's policies, but I at least could respect their sincerity. The Progressive Conservatives were a respectable center-right party that I would even have been willing to vote for. The merger of the two, which was built on a broken promise, has resulted in a party uniting the worst parts of both.

You likely won't hear the Liberals shouting too loudly about halting Tar Sands exploitation, although there are carefully measured words about responsible development.

The remarkable thing on the Canadian left has been how bitterly acrimonious the relationships have been between and even within the Parties since the collapse of the proposed coalition.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

The tar sands are, actually, probably uneconomical to run right now, with the current price of oil. So, that opens discussion back up a lot.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Not what I've heard from other sources... I think the person I heard from put the break-even point somewhere under $20/barrel.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

Hm... yeah, looks complicated.

The lowest estimate I've seen is $25/barrel, ranging up to $100/barrel. With current oil prices just over $50/barrel, that suggests that new development will likely be put on hold, but that work to increase efficiency at current extraction sites/processes may be done, and even that some existing extraction processes may be also put on hold. Of course, how much of the cost-of-extraction is amortized capital costs will affect those decisions... and may affect those figures, too. If the $25/barrel is operating costs -- but the higher estimates are operating costs + amortized capital costs, it suggests continued operations, since it isn't worth shutting down, but also not worth spending on new development.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

It is complicated, yes. They may be stockpiling in anticipation of a future price rise. Also, there is a significant cost to shutting down, and there may be political repercussions.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

But, I do think that it is no longer the case that there is a "strong market for the Alberta tar goo". It is, at $50/barrel, a marginal or weak market.